Political Theory

Re: Morality of might makes right

Brainpolice — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:43:06 GMT

Ha!

Re: Morality of might makes right

wombatron — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:41:31 GMT

Brainpolice:

twistedbydsign99:

I guess I was just falling into the trap of categorically assigning an action a moral value regardless of context. Thanks for the brain reboot. Obedience to power is right or wrong depending on the content of the individual and probably a load of other things.

Glad you realized that that is a trap!

Re: Morality of might makes right

Brainpolice — Wed, 13 May 2009 20:49:26 GMT

twistedbydsign99:

I guess I was just falling into the trap of categorically assigning an action a moral value regardless of context. Thanks for the brain reboot. Obedience to power is right or wrong depending on the content of the individual and probably a load of other things.

Glad you realized that that is a trap!

Re: Morality of might makes right

twistedbydsign99 — Wed, 13 May 2009 19:43:15 GMT

I guess I was just falling into the trap of categorically assigning an action a moral value regardless of context. Thanks for the brain reboot. Obedience to power is right or wrong depending on the content of the individual and probably a load of other things.

Re: Morality of might makes right

Jon Irenicus — Wed, 13 May 2009 19:12:23 GMT

I agree, if a third party is involved and aggressed against it's definitely a punishable violation of the NAP.

Re: Morality of might makes right

Juan — Wed, 13 May 2009 18:55:49 GMT

Jon Irenicus:
It doesn't differ practically from a harsh turn of events making your life not worth living and thus choosing to either continue in the hope that things will get better or to just die.

Maybe that view can be extended to analyze this scenario ? If I am faced with the choice of killing a third party to save my life, am I justified to do so ? My answer is no. If my neighbor to the right steals my car, am I justified in stealing the car of my neighbor to the left (or anybody else's car for that matter)? It seems not...

Re: Morality of might makes right

Jon Irenicus — Wed, 13 May 2009 18:19:57 GMT

It doesn't differ practically from a harsh turn of events making your life not worth living and thus choosing to either continue in the hope that things will get better or to just die. For example, if you are forced into servitude but have others depending on you, so that resisting would endanger them you may consider it imprudent to end your life. Then again I do not believe in an absolute imperative to resist aggression, I merely think aggression should be punishable. Up to the individual to resist it or not, depending on how it will impact their life and those of dependents.

Morality of might makes right

twistedbydsign99 — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:46:30 GMT

So I'm having a little trouble clearing this up, I was wondering if maybe jon, brain police, or someone could dissect this for me? So if I define morality as the way a person should act, in other words a moral action being one that should be undertaken, it seems like this definition of morality has nothing to say about might making right. When someone is stronger than you, be it a man or a government they constrain your available choices through force. I understand that the initial constraint of choice is immoral, but what about after its already occured like the world we live in now? Ultimately someone mighty can take all your choices away except the choice of life or death, when this happens I would say that one should do what the mighty person says rather than die. So does this mean that it the extreme case of a dictator it is moral to obey? I was pretty much going with Aristotle in thinking that if a moral theory justifies murder then its probably wrong, and I put obedience to power in that category of wrongs.

Is my definition of morality wrong? Thanks for any help.